Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Share
    avatar
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1166
    Points : 2054
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  Russian Patriot on Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:44 pm

    Topol ballistic missiles may stay in service until 2019

    17:06 28/10/2011
    MOSCOW, October 28 (RIA Novosti)
    Tags: Topol-M, Yars, Sergei Karakayev, Moscow, Russia

    The service life of Topol mobile ballistic missile systems could be extended until 2019, Commander of Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces (SMF) Lt. Gen. Sergei Karakayev said on Friday.

    “The road-mobile Topol missile systems may remain in service with the SMF until 2019,” Karakayev said at a meeting with SMF veterans. “The evaluation of its [Topol missile] reliability and technical condition allows us to consider further extension of its service life.”

    The RS-12M Topol (SS-25 Sickle) is a single-warhead intercontinental ballistic missile, approximately the same size and shape as the U.S. Minuteman ICBM. The first Topol missiles entered service in 1985.

    The missile has a maximum range of 10,000 km (6,125 miles) and can carry a nuclear warhead with a yield of 550 kilotons.

    Although the service life of the SS-25 (originally 10 years) is being periodically extended, the missile will be progressively retired over the next decade and replaced by mobile Topol-M (SS-27 Stalin) and RS-24 Yars missile systems.

    As of August 2011, the SMF operated at least 171 road-mobile Topol missile systems, 50 silo-based and 18 road-mobile Topol-M systems, and nine RS-24 systems.

    http://www.en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20111028/168206957.html
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16510
    Points : 17116
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Topol ballistic missiles may stay in service until 2019

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 29, 2011 1:32 am

    This is good news.

    Older stuff lasting longer puts less pressure on getting new stuff into production to replace it.

    It also means that if Russia is not satisfied with US promises over Euro ABM then they will be able to stop the decline in warhead numbers and increase them without too much of an economic burden.
    avatar
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1166
    Points : 2054
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces to get 4G control systems

    Post  Russian Patriot on Sat Dec 17, 2011 6:34 pm


    Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces to get 4G control systems


    Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces will receive advanced automated command-and-control systems, SMF chief Lt. Gen. Sergei Karakayev said on Friday.

    New, “fourth-generation systems” will start to be deployed next year at command posts and fixed-site and road-mobile missile complexes, he said.

    The system is designed to ensure effective control of new-generation nuclear weapons.

    At the moment one SMF army and two SMF divisions are preparing to use the new system, the general said.

    http://www.en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20111216/170305534.html

    Austin

    Posts : 6327
    Points : 6727
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    SMF: We can destroy the United States in less than half an hour

    Post  Austin on Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:38 pm

    Interview: The commander of the Strategic Missile Forces, Lieutenant General Sergei Karakayev

    "Vladimir Putin was right - we can destroy the United States in less than half an hour"
    avatar
    SOC

    Posts : 581
    Points : 628
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 39
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  SOC on Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:05 pm

    Well, duh! It takes less than 30 minutes to land Topols all over the US. People often forget just how fast an ICBM gets from place to place.

    Austin

    Posts : 6327
    Points : 6727
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  Austin on Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:22 pm

    The interesting part of the interview is he confirms for the first time officially the existance of Perimeter system , also referred to as Dead Hand in the West which has been the discussion of few books from western Authors.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16510
    Points : 17116
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:37 pm

    There was a recent report that the strategic rocket forces C4IR system will be upgraded to a 4g network.

    I think the purpose of reminding the US of the facts is to help them put into perspective that building ABM systems against threats that don't exist is making a real threat from very real ICBMs and real nuclear warheads that will work as advertised a bigger threat to the US.

    Not that the US seems to have noticed.

    Perhaps historians might look back and identify this warning as a clue to why there are no humans left and the world is ruled by the Dolphins.


    Firebird

    Posts : 953
    Points : 985
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  Firebird on Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:42 am

    I've met these so-called "Conservative" Americans. They're absolute maniacs. When you think what sort of country Germany became in the 30s and 40s, its not at all hard to imagine a waning America going the same way.

    I remember trying to do business with one. It was a difficult negotiation, not least because there was the possibility he was a crook. So I had to be pretty forceful in discussions. At the end I said, "I hope u don't mind me being so blunt like this". His reply was "I wouldn't respect you if you weren't".

    That encapsulated the whole situation. He was someone who would only respect a greater force, or even someone who would bully and cheat, the way he had grown accustomed to.
    A genuine "Conservative" of that type would have no problems pushing us all towards WW3.
    If it happened, he'd blame it all on "liberals", politicians, or "the enemies of freedom". etc. They're completely detached from any form of reality.

    _____________________
    There's a 2nd problem with all of this. And thats the question of who "lost" the Cold War, and who will "lose" future ones. I look at it this way. In 1990, I remember China and India were poor, REALLY poor compared to the US's materialism and also compared to the USSR. But in just 15 yrs, both these Asian nations moved towards genuine superpower status. In that time they're leapt 40, maybe 50 yrs forward in many technologies esp military tech.

    I can't help but feel both the US and Russia have paid for the last arms race, by losing some of their massive advantage. But the difference between them is that Russia is renewing itself, and not engulfed in hubris and Nationalist narcissism. Now its time for America to start looking at itself a bit, IMO...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16510
    Points : 17116
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:59 am

    I would have loved to have seen the US have a really good president that instead of setting a goal to beat the Soviets to the moon to get over not getting into space first (another misnoma... the US claims to have won the space race, when in actual fact it won the race to put a man on the moon... it lost the race to space in every regard... first satellite, first animal, first man in space, first man in orbit, first to take photos of the far side of the moon that is never visible from earth, first to land stuff on the moon etc etc were all Soviet victories...), that they had set the goal to do the opposite of their invention of consumerism... to develop green technology that will more efficiently use the resources we have and get us off our dirty energy dependencies on Coal and Oil and the technology to make plastic that wont pollute the earth for a million years.

    It would take advantage of the American spirit with clear and achievable goals, and the result would probably be that we would already be on Mars now because the technology needed for humans to efficiently use less rather than more would mean we could set up self sufficient colonies in space and on the moon and all over the place.

    Instead of the west dependent on foreign places for oil and other energy resources the US cold be making money selling these new green technologies to Africa and other countries that could use high tech solutions that don't pollute and create seas of rubbish like the consumer society the US is exporting does.

    Opportunity missed. Could have been an opportunity for Obama, but he was made largely toothless because Republicans cared more about making Obama look bad than actually doing something that might benefit the people of the US.

    No great surprise... all that money for bailouts for the banks and they are either hanging on to it or investing it in foreign countries to get the best return on their dollar. The US government should have made demands to ensure the money was invested in the US economy to create jobs and get things going, but for a slightly higher return they spent most of the money in China or they are hanging on to it for a rainy day and multi million dollar retirement packages for the CEOs.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16510
    Points : 17116
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Dec 21, 2011 8:20 am

    BTW I think the world will be a much better place with more dominant countries, rather than one or two dominant players.

    A strong China and India and Brazil and Russia and South Africa and other nations is a good thing in my opinion.

    The US and the west seems to want a bunch of yes men and for the international bodies like the UN to be a rubber stamp tool to meet their needs... which is clearly not healthy for anyone.

    With more voices being heard and more players able to punnish other players for breaking the rules, their might not be fewer wars, but there will be fewer safe wars like the US interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan which have done absolutely nothing to make Americans safer.

    Firebird

    Posts : 953
    Points : 985
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  Firebird on Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:33 pm

    I wonder about how superpower standoffs / arms races will be in the future.

    The US missile shield is an absolute disgrace. The obvious solution is to start building big Russian bases in Cuba, Venezuela, the Caribbean etc. The justification is simple. America hides behind peaceful European nations that Russia has no intention of attacking. America continues to bully her neighbours, so Russia can protect them and equalise the harrassment she gets from Americans meddling in Europe.

    The American "Conservatives" are really just loudmouths, bloodmongers and economic parasites. However, other states must consider the future direction of defence in order to guard against American problems.

    Currently, its highly unlikely American missiles can "catch" many, if indeed any Russian ones.
    However, I would consider the fact that smaller short range missiles don't have the weight, and may be developed as more manouverable and stealthy over a long time. An American base stationed near Russia, could "chase" a missile on its way to America.

    Russia has numerous options here. It can take the potential war to America - a good idea. ie build reciprocal missile and anti-missile bases near the US. It should also solidify alliances more - with EU partners, India, Lat-Am and others.

    Ironically, the easiest way for Russia to destroy America wouldn't even need ICBMs.
    Suitcase nukes could be stored in American cities/ strategic sites. and no-one would have an inkling they were there.

    The American generated arms race is as much about American Neo-Cons extracting money from an ignorant populance as anything else. You only need to look at their ridiculous Stealth fighter programme..
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16510
    Points : 17116
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Dec 21, 2011 9:35 pm

    There was one interesting idea from Russia about a good cold war weapon that might apply, and that was a mini sub with a compact AIP nuclear reactor.

    Imagine a small 1,000 ton or less mini sub with a nuclear power plant instead of a diesel plus batteries and electric drive.

    The reactor is not a conventional reactor, it is of the type used to power satellites that are in the earths shadow too often to make solar panels useful. The reactor is like a big battery that generates a few hundred kilowatts for about 13 years.

    The point is that with that power you can charge batteries and operate CO2 scrubbers, and once the batteries are charged you can operate on them in quiet conventional sub mode. Even when charging the batteries you are running quiet as there is no diesel engine.

    The negative consequence is that your sub wont be fast, the positive consequence is that you have the underwater duration of a nuclear powered sub at much reduced cost.

    The idea is basically have 30-40 of these mini subs with crews of 15-20 men with massive food reserves that can sail to the US coasts and operate there for a month at a time and then sail home... each sub will be armed with a few torpedos for self defence but as a main weapon payload these will be ballistic missile subs armed with a mini SLBM with a flight range of 3-4,000km. A load of 2-4 missiles that can pretty much all be fired at once from underwater means a very quiet sub to hunt with a deadly payload that has a short flight time to target on a depressed trajectory very very close to the US.

    Note the nuclear power plant is safe and tested and has no moving parts and when it was fitted to a rather old SS the performance went from 350NM underwater range to 7,000NM underwater range, and the latter was mainly because the underwater speed is something like 4KNTs and they pretty much ran out of food... with one nuclear battery they had an unlimited supply of fresh water and air and continuous electrical power source of about 600 KW or so I believe.

    With newer and more modern and efficient electronics and electrical hardware and newer power plants a future vessel would be a very interesting idea.

    Of course they are currently developing an AIP for their new LADA class subs that uses fuel cell technology, except instead of using stored Hydrogen, which is a fire risk and an infrastructure problem at every port it operates from, it apparently uses chemicals drawn directly from diesel... which is carried on a diesel electric sub anyway.
    avatar
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 676
    Points : 846
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  ahmedfire on Thu Dec 22, 2011 5:02 pm

    nominal flight time of a ballistic missile traveling between the U.S. and Russia is about 30 minutes; it is 12 minutes for a missile launched by a submarine stationed off the coast

    the entire process of detecting and evaluating the attack warning must be completed in less than 7 minutes. According to retired military officers, the President is then given a 30 second briefing. If the attack warning is still believed to be real, the president is then given a series of options, all of which have been planned well in advance.
    If the attack is believed to come from a submarine, the President will be told that he then has as little as 10 seconds to make the decision whether or not to launch a responsive nuclear attack. This is because the nuclear warheads delivered by a SLBM will arrive in slightly more than four more minutes. The order to launch must be immediately conveyed to launch crews sitting in underground bunkers, who control the missiles. The missiles must then be fired and clear the upper atmosphere before the incoming warheads began to detonate.

    www.wagingpeace.org/articles/pdfs/2011_06_24_starr.pdf
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16510
    Points : 17116
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:31 pm

    nominal flight time of a ballistic missile traveling between the U.S. and Russia is about 30 minutes; it is 12 minutes for a missile launched by a submarine stationed off the coast

    Not strictly true as it really depends where the submarine is and where its targets are... a submarine can legally operate in US economic waters... it can get to just over 12 miles from US soil before the US actually has any rights to take any action.

    A bold, or clever captain could operate 12.5 miles off the coast in all electric super quiet mode for months on end... tests have shown that active sonar is needed to keep track of such a threat most of the time, so a Russian sub in Cuban or even Canadian or Mexican waters could enable less than 5 minutes warning depending on the target... much like the US Jupiter missiles in Turkey that created the Cuban missile crisis.

    The Iskander is a tiny missile, they could develop a sub launched missile with similar design parameters that flys a non ballistic path with lots of manouvers that would make interception incredibly difficult as the missile speed would be quite high.
    avatar
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 676
    Points : 846
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  ahmedfire on Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:38 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    nominal flight time of a ballistic missile traveling between the U.S. and Russia is about 30 minutes; it is 12 minutes for a missile launched by a submarine stationed off the coast

    Not strictly true as it really depends where the submarine is and where its targets are... a submarine can legally operate in US economic waters... it can get to just over 12 miles from US soil before the US actually has any rights to take any action.

    A bold, or clever captain could operate 12.5 miles off the coast in all electric super quiet mode for months on end... tests have shown that active sonar is needed to keep track of such a threat most of the time, so a Russian sub in Cuban or even Canadian or Mexican waters could enable less than 5 minutes warning depending on the target... much like the US Jupiter missiles in Turkey that created the Cuban missile crisis.

    The Iskander is a tiny missile, they could develop a sub launched missile with similar design parameters that flys a non ballistic path with lots of manouvers that would make interception incredibly difficult as the missile speed would be quite high.

    At the time of war , there is no economic water , U.S navy with ABM defences ,anti submarine forces will spread in any place that could reach thousands of miles to detect any threat,so there is no economic water line as i think,,

    Is the economic line is 200 nautical miles from coast ?

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16510
    Points : 17116
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Dec 23, 2011 10:33 pm

    At the time of war , there is no economic water , U.S navy with ABM defences ,anti submarine forces will spread in any place that could reach thousands of miles to detect any threat,so there is no economic water line as i think,,

    Normally a diesel electric is easy to track, because its diesel engines are noisy and when it is running on batteries it is slow.

    The use of a nuclear battery means this new type of sub will still be quite slow, but will never have to surface and run diesel engines to charge up its batteries.

    Such a vessel would be the ultimate stealth vessel... large SSNs are much faster, but their reactors make noise so they are not as quiet as a nuke electric sub.

    In times of peace the subs would lurk undetected in coastal waters off the US... they could even make the sub with spherical internal pressure hulls to allow it to go down very deep (ie 1,000m or more).

    In the event of a war a signal sent to the subs would initiate the conflict... so even if they have SSNs shadowing them the launch procedure would likely be fire the missiles and dive to 1,000m or deeper where US weapons can't follow.

    Potentially more dangerous than stealth bombers, and you could reassign them to regime change roles with conventional warheads in different regions... they would be useful as land attack subs and of course with torpedoes as an anti shipping vessel.

    Firebird

    Posts : 953
    Points : 985
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  Firebird on Sat Dec 24, 2011 1:50 am

    I think that unless we're at the epicentre of it, its all very difficult to speculate how Russia and America might resolve an escalating dispute.

    Ofcourse Russian SSNBs in the Arctic are still pretty undetectable. And I believe weaponry will get more and more stealthy, so that pure "defence" will get harder.
    Then there's the topics of plasma stealth, electromagnetic pulse type weapons etc.

    Suitcase nukes are of "moderate" power. But another method might be to assembley larger nukes on enemy soil prior to any conflict. Pretty effective missiles could be launched from a standard sea container cover.
    All of this makes me think that the whole missile shield debate seems to be a little bizarre.
    I'd have to say that both superpowers will always be able to pretty much obliterate each other.

    The big question is how the 2 might interrelate or have a balance of influence in the rest of the world. To me, thats pretty perplexing...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16510
    Points : 17116
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 24, 2011 2:24 am

    I am sure people living in West and East Germany during the Cold War had very different thoughts on WWIII and relations between the US and the Soviets than people like myself who are on the other side of the planet.

    Solutions can come from the people involved directly in an argument, but equally they can often be found from independent third parties.

    What one protagonist might see as showing weakness, an external observer might see as a gesture of good faith.

    As long as both sides see the conflict as something they can win, or even get out of alive the chance of conflict is greatly increased.

    MAD pretty much meant that both sides knew the other could destroy them which tempered their responses because while they didn't really understand each others views or motives, they knew neither wanted to be dead either.

    ABM systems are tools of politicians to win votes and popularity... it is like the anti abortionists calling their movement pro life. This means their opponents must therefore be pro death. Equally the number of doctors and nurses murdered by people claiming to be pro life you would think would be zero, yet it is not.

    For a politician it is easier to justify spending on missiles that shoot down ICBMs than to spend on ICBMs. Promising to try to stop the enemies attack sounds rather better than trying to kill more of them than they can kill of you.

    Its military value is pretty clear by looking at history.

    The ABM treaty allowed both sides to either build an ABM system with a maximum of 100 interceptors (at a time when each side had 6,000 plus strategic warheads each) around an ICBM field, or the capital city of the country.

    The Soviets chose to build their system around Moscow... not to save it, but to delay its destruction to ensure launch commands got to the various people it needed to to launch a full strike in retaliation.

    The US built an ABM system around an ICBM field... it was open for a day and was then shut down.

    They realised the futility of the exercise then.

    I'd have to say that both superpowers will always be able to pretty much obliterate each other.

    And that is what restrains them from actions like WWI and WWII, because they know if they trigger the other side to take that big step it is all over for everyone.

    ABM systems all over the place introduce doubt into MAD, along with weapon reduction treaties like START, and sneaky first strike systems like the B-2, someone might come to think it might actually be worth having a go.

    Remember for a time it was believed Iraq had WMDs and no one could convince them otherwise.

    For quite some time the entire west blamed Russia for the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia.

    If Japan was to invade the Kurile Islands, but says Russian forces opened fire first... who will the western world instantly believe?
    avatar
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 676
    Points : 846
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  ahmedfire on Sun Dec 25, 2011 10:50 am

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16510
    Points : 17116
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Dec 25, 2011 11:56 pm

    Very biased.

    The collapse and reconstitution of the Soviet Union did not lead to its disarmament.

    The collapse of the Soviet Union led to the complete withdrawl of Soviet forces from Eastern Europe.
    It did not lead to a reciprocal withdrawl of US, British, and French forces back to their respective countries.
    It led to the entire Warsaw Pact joining NATO, and several former Soviet Republics joining NATO.

    It led to an enormous arms reduction in terms of nuclear weapons by the Russians just on economic grounds.

    It led to a NATO increase in power by several orders of magnitude as they absorbed the forces of the former WP and some Soviet republics.

    Whining about Russian cooperation with various states constitutes the rest of the article...
    avatar
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1166
    Points : 2054
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Russia test launches Stiletto missile

    Post  Russian Patriot on Wed Dec 28, 2011 11:31 pm


    Russia test launches Stiletto missile


    Russia successfully test launched an RS-18 (SS-19 Stiletto) intercontinental ballistic missile from the Baikonur Space Center in Kazakhstan on Tuesday, Defense Ministry spokesman Vadim Koval said.

    “The goal of the test launch is to prove the stability and basic technical characteristics of missiles of this kind,” Koval said.

    The Russian Strategic Missile Forces are considering the possibility of extending the RS-18 missiles’ service term by one year to 33 years, he added.

    A source in Russia’s defense industry said RS-18 missiles are currently used to test advanced warheads designed to penetrate missile defenses.

    Developed by the Chelomei Design Bureau, the RS-18 is a silo-based, liquid-propellant missile, which together with the RS-16 (SS-17) and RS-20 (SS-18) comprises the fourth generation of Russian strategic missiles. The missile is capable of carrying up to six warheads.

    The first RS-18 missiles entered service in 1975, with its improved version being put into service five years later.

    In late November, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev ordered a series of steps intended to strengthen Russia’s missile defense capabilities in response to U.S.-European missile shield plans. Those plans include a possible deployment of Iskander tactical missiles near Russia’s Baltic Sea enclave of Kaliningrad “in the near future.”

    Russia is seeking written, legally binding guarantees that the U.S. missile shield will not be directed against it. Washington, however, has refused to provide those guarantees to Moscow and said it will not alter its missile defense plans despite increasingly tough rhetoric from Moscow.

    http://www.en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20111227/170519962.html
    avatar
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1166
    Points : 2054
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Russian Missile Forces Hold High Alert Drills

    Post  Russian Patriot on Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:22 pm

    Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces are holding a series of exercises to practice putting road-mobile missile systems on high alert, SMF spokesman Col. Vadim Koval said.

    The exercises involve Topol (SS-25 Sikle), Topol-M (SS-27 Sickle B) and Yars (RS-24) mobile systems stationed in central Russia and Siberia.

    “SMF units armed with Topol, Topol-M and Yars road-mobile missile systems will practice patrolling, camouflaging and launch preparation procedures during high alert drills from January 16 to February 3,” Koval told reporters on Monday.

    The SMF are planning to hold over 100 tactical drills in the first half of 2012.

    As of January 2012, the SMF operated at least 162 mobile Topol systems, 18 mobile Topol-M and 15 mobile Yars systems.


    http://www.en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20120117/170790557.html
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10509
    Points : 10986
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Russian Strategic Missile Forces

    Post  George1 on Tue Sep 04, 2012 2:19 pm

    Russian Strategic Missile Forces embark on war games

    More than 8,000 servicemen and 300 military vehicles are involved in military maneuvers of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces which are getting under way on Tuesday.

    The participants in the drills will hone practical steps to prevent a nuclear war in case of an armed conflict with the participation of Russia.

    The war games, which will continue until September 7th, mark a closing stage in a series of command and post exercises and trainings held by the command of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces in 2012.

    http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_09_04/Russian-Strategic-Missile-Forces-embark-on-war-games/
    avatar
    SOC

    Posts : 581
    Points : 628
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 39
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  SOC on Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:41 am

    My look at the current and future state of Russian strategic forces, including the BMEW and ABM networks, is in the September issue of Jane's Intelligence Review (and is bolstered by a pretty badass satellite shot of the Armavir Voronezh). If any of you get ahold of a copy, let me know what I dorked up so I can do better next time!

    TheRealist

    Posts : 78
    Points : 112
    Join date : 2012-08-20

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  TheRealist on Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:43 am

    May I ask what that satellite which you are referring? Thank you.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Strategic Missile Troops (ICBMs): Discussion & News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:58 pm